বুধবার, ২৬ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১২

GaryMoller.com - Health, Fitness - Naturally!: 30 Years of Breast ...

You are showering and you feel an inconsistency in one of your breasts. ?Given all the pink hoopla about the breast cancer epidemic, you worry yourself sick that you may have breast cancer. ?You rush off to your doctor who orders a mamogram. ?The mamogram results show what may be a tiny lump. ?You are referred to a breast expert. ?You are on the conveyor belt. ?Once on, it may be next to impossible to get off. ?You are in the "System".

Here's the problem: The latest research concludes that over 90% of early detection cases for breast cancer are false positives. ?In other words, if left alone, this 90%+ would never have come to anything! ?The problem for ?your doctor is this:

"If over 90% of positive mamograms are actually false positives, how do we detect and then treat the few remaining percent that may go on to be invasive cancer?"

The answer currently being employed is to treat every case that may be false positive as being positive. ?In other words - treat every case as developing into invasive cancer. ?This is very bad news for women. ?

Millions of women, worldwide, who did not have breast cancer have had their breasts removed and/or undergone debilitating chemotherapy, radiation therapy and hormone therapy.

Why has breast cancer become the epidemic it is today? ?

Breast cancer may be on the increase. ?But fractionally so. ?The majority of the scary increase in breast cancer rates is actually due to early stage detection through mamograms of conditions that may never progress to invasive cancer. ?Plus a ton and a half of media hype generated by huge charitable and commercial?industries?that feed on the cancer epidemic - be it real or not. ?The greater the terror generated, the larger their incomes, so its hardly in their interests to cool the hype.

Why does your doctor treat all "positives" with so much aggression?

It may be next to impossible to know which of these many false positives will go on to be invasive cancer. ?If your doctor decides to take a "wait and see" approach and it consequently develops into an aggressive cancer, he/she has got a serious problem - a very unhappy patient who may complain to the authorities and even sue for negligence. ?Better to play it safe, professionally, and order the full works for the patient. ?No doctor ever got sued for over-treating a breast lump (as far as I know anyway).

If you have a breast lump, what should you do?

Here is what I would do:

Do not fiddle with it - that means, leave it alone! ?Do not poke and prod and definitely do not crush it with a mamogram or allow a biopsy at this stage. ?You do not want to break up any tumour, causing cells to migrate to other parts of the body. ?As an aside: a mamogram is ionising radiation which increases your lifetime risk of getting cancer!

Get a thermogram asap. ?Best done directly via a thermogram screening service. A thermogram is totally non-invasive. ?The thermogram will pick up the heat signature in remarkable detail of vascularisation associated with a growing tumour.

If the thermogram shows something suspicious then it is time to escalate and go see your doctor armed with your thermogram results. ?Incidentally, the people providing the thermogram service are hugely helpful and caring - listen to their advice.

Regardless of the results, also consult someone, like me, who can advise on nutrition and other strategies to promote breast health.

Mamograms are early detection - not prevention!

It is detection of cancer after the horse has bolted. It is not prevention. ?There is a lot that can be done to prevent the development of cancer. ?Measures that put the odds favourably in your camp.

Have you ever wondered what comes before cancer? ?

A cancer does not develop overnight out of thin air. ?In most cases there must be conditions that stress the cells for years, if not decades, like decades of smoking, or a bra strap that has been rubbing a mole for years, or repeated CT scan and x-rays that have zapped you with radiation. ?There must almost always be oxidative stress within the cellular environment often due to a deficiency of a nutrient such as selenium, and/or the presence of a toxin such as lead or mercury. ?

Oxidative stress is most commonly experienced as inflammation, such as with a swollen prostate gland. ?In the case of the breast tissue, inflammation may be?fibrocystic breast disease. ?There are many practical interventions that are known to quell inflammation and return unhealthy tissue to a state of normality. ?These involve personalised nutrition and massage guided by a suitably trained health professional.

If breast screening has caused far?more?harm than good, why hasn't this been headline news?

The report that breast screening has done so much harm was published in not just any old journal, but in the?New England Journal of Medicine. ?This news should be sensational! ?I can only speculate why this report has not received the attention it so deserves:

Like Greece and Spain, or the US Big Banks, the breast screening industry is just far too big to fail. ?There are many vested and powerful interests in continuing with the status quo.

Breast cancer is BIG money. ?There is no money to be made from true prevention.

Mainstream media operates in sound bites. ?It will take many sound bites to make sense of this confusing matter. ?It will end up confusing the public, so better to remain quiet.

Who goes first will be accused of causing widespread hysteria and confusion. ?Bit like telling the Emperor that he has no clothes!

If the report was about a million men being maimed and lied to by their doctors and not women, then there would surely be an outcry.

Breast cancer is war! ?In order to win this war, we must be prepared to suffer collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties (in this case, innocent women). ?Of course this is the mis-applied logic of a mad-man.

Further reading and further action

I have reproduced the?New England Journal of Medicine study below with links to its source. ?I have also reproduced part of an article by Ji Sayer which I urge you to read in full by following the hyperlink. ?I have also taken some quotes from the website of the caped internet crusader, Mike Adams. ?On this issue, I agree with you Mike (I think your ideas on gun control are completely nuts).

Please leave your thoughts and comments using the "post a comment" tab at the end of this posting and please forward this article to others, thanks.

Posted on:?

Friday, November 23rd 2012 at 5:00 am

"A disturbing new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the possibility that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer"

"Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years."

_____________________________

"We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which?women these are, that's some pretty serious harm."

Mike Adams: "In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed,?93% of the "early detection" cancer cases studied were?false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.

Archie Bleyer, M.D., and H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H.

BACKGROUND

To reduce mortality, screening must detect life-threatening disease at an earlier, more curable stage. Effective cancer-screening programs therefore both increase the incidence of cancer detected at an early stage and decrease the incidence of cancer presenting at a late stage.

METHODS

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to examine trends from 1976 through 2008 in the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and localized disease) and late-stage breast cancer (regional and distant disease) among women 40 years of age or older.

RESULTS

The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year, from 112 to 234 cases per 100,000 women ? an absolute increase of 122 cases per 100,000 women. Concomitantly, the rate at which women present with late-stage cancer has decreased by 8%, from 102 to 94 cases per 100,000 women ? an absolute decrease of 8 cases per 100,000 women. With the assumption of a constant underlying disease burden, only 8 of the 122 additional early-stage cancers diagnosed were expected to progress to advanced disease. After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40 years of age, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.